Dismissed

Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Institute for Management v. Manu Arkasali

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2021WA/290/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a student's petition for refund of admission fees under AICTE guidelines before the academic session commenced. The Institute appealed, arguing they could not fill the seat. The High Court held the institution discharges a public duty, rejected the appeal, and ordered the refund with interest.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; institute directed to refund fees within thirty days; interest at 6% p.a. if not paid.

Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Institute for… — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

WA 290/2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶9

W.A.No.290/2020 (EDN-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Institute for Management, Development Site No.1, Chamundi Hill Road, Siddartha Nagara, Mysuru-570 011, By its Chairperson. … APPELLANT

¶12

(By Sri Manmohan P.N., Adv.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Manu Arkasali, S/o Vishwanath M.Arkasali, Aged 28 years, No.33/1/2, 8^th Cross, Bilekalli, Someshwara Layout, Bengaluru-560 076.

¶15

All India Council for Technical Education, 7^th Floor, Chanderlok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001. Represented by its Member Secretary, The Regional Director, AICTE, Prasanna Kumar Block,

¶16

WA 290/2020

¶17

¶18

Bangalore University Campus, Palace Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By Sri Shiva Rudra, Adv. for R1; Sri Rakshith Jois.Y.P., Adv. for Sri Showri.H.R., Adv. for R2)

¶20

This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 18.02.2020 passed in writ petition No.18450/2017 passed by the learned single Judge and consequently dismiss writ petition No.18450/2017, etc.

¶21

This appeal coming on for Hearing, this day, Satish Chandra Sharma J. , delivered the following:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18450/2017 (Manu Arkasali Vs All India Council for Technical Education & another).

¶24

The facts of the case reveal that respondent no.1 before this Court was a candidate in respect of Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM) in respect of Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Institute (appellant) and he

¶25

WA 290/2020

¶26

¶27

was granted admission by the present appellant-Institute. An offer of admission was issued on 09.03.2016. He deposited Rs.83,000/on 21.03.2016 and a further sum of Rs.2,37,000/- on 31.05.2016. As stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant in the open court, the date of commencement of the academic session was 16.06.2016 and the student-respondent no.1 submitted an application for withdrawal of admission and refund of fees on 10.06.2016, meaning thereby, prior to commencement of the academic session.

¶28

The learned Single Judge, relying upon the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) guidelines, has allowed the writ petition on the ground that the request was made before the commencement of the academic session. Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:

¶29

"8. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner took admission for PGDM Course in respondent No.2-Institution and paid Rs.3,20,000/towards fees in two installments, i.e. on 21.03.2016 and 31.05.2016 respectively. Due to unavoidable

¶30

WA 290/2020

¶31

¶32

situation, he withdrew the admission and one of the main reasons is that the petitioner’s father was suffering from heart aliment. Thus, the petitioner was compelled to withdraw the admission on 10.06.2016 i.e much before the commencement of the Course. It is undisputed fact that the Academic session and teaching process would commence from 1st August of the year. It means academic session and teaching process was yet to commence as on the date of withdrawal of admission. Thus, respondent No.2-Institution had sufficient time from 10.06.2016 to 1.08.2016 so as to fill up the vacancy caused due to withdrawal of petitioner’s admission on 10.06.2016. Therefore, the contention of the respondent No.2-Institution that due to withdrawal of the petitioner’s admission, respondent No.2-Institution would suffer financial loss, which may not hold good. Refund policy as per All India Council for Technical Education (for short ‘AICTE’) guidelines reads as under;

¶33

“Refund Policy - As per AICTE Guidelines (Reference: AICTE Guidelines No.- AICTE/ Legal/04(01) / 2007, April 2007)

¶34

WA 290/2020

¶35

¶36

Process of refund of tuition, development and other fees after cancellation of admission secured through CAP rounds, institute level rounds and vacancy round(s) of admission:

¶37

The candidate, who has been provisionally admitted, may cancel admission by submitting an application for cancellation in duplicate, in the prescribed format and may request for refund of fee.

¶38

The refund of fee as applicable shall be made in due course. It is made clear that such application for cancellation will be considered if and only if the admission is confirmed by paying the prescribed tuition fee and other fees in full and by submitting the original documents. Refund shall be made after deduction of the cancellation charges as shown:

¶39

SITUTION	REFUND
On request received	Entire fee less by Rs
before the date of start of the academic	1000/-*
session & seat could
be filled by the
Institute before the cut off date.
On request received	Entire fee less the
on/after the	Seat Cancellation
beginning of	Charges on pro rata
academic session &	basis **
seat could be filled by
the Institute before the cut off date.
On request received before/after the start	No Refund (except security deposit)

¶40

WA 290/2020

¶41

¶42

of the academic session & seat could not be filled by the Institute

¶43

Note:

¶44

• * Entire amount of Security/Caution Money Deposit will be refunded to the candidate.

¶45

• ** For calculation of the Cancellation Charges on the pro-rata basis, one month shall be treated as one unit e.g. if the candidate cancels admission on third day i.e. within one month after the start of academic session & the seat is filled before the cut off date, then Cancellation charges on pro rata basis will be the higher amount of (Entire fee) /12 or Rs.1000/-.

¶46

As per the above guidelines of AICTE, the petitioner’s case would fall under the first situation namely ‘On request received before the date of start of the academic sessions and seat could be filled by the Institution before the cut off date, refund is entire fee less by Rs.1000”. In respect of cut of date for filling up of seats are concerned, nothing is forthcoming in any of the documents. Thus, one has to draw inference that cut off date would be prior to 1st August of the year and

¶47

WA 290/2020

¶48

¶49

respondent No.2-Institution had sufficient time to fill up the vacant seat caused due to withdrawal of petitioner’s admission.

¶50

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Institution cited L.K.Talwar’s decision, referred supra, wherein, the Court has not examined Anenxure-R1-Public Notice, which reveals refund policy as per AICTE Guidelines. That apart, factual aspect of each case is required to be taken into consideration. In the present case, undisputedly, the petitioner had withdrawn the admission on 10.06.2016 and academic course and Sessions would be commencing from 1st August 2016. Consequently, respondent No.2-Institution had sufficient time to fill up the vacant seat. Accordingly, petitioner’s case would fall under first situation as prescribed in the refund policy of AICTE guidelines. Hence, respondent No.2 is directed to refund the amount paid by the petitioner after deducting Rs.13,000/within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which petitioner is entitle for interest at 6% per annum.

¶51

WA 290/2020

¶52

¶53

With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of."

¶54

Learned Counsel for the appellant-Institute has vehemently argued before this Court that on account of the erroneous interpretation of the policy of AICTE, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. The policy makes it very clear that once a request is received the student before commencement of the academic session and in case the seat could not be filled by the institute, no such refund is permissible. The guidelines of the AICTE also provides that the institute has to commence the academic session latest by 1^st of August. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued before this Court that the institute was having 180 seats as sanctioned by the AICTE and as the institute was able to fill only 172 seats, the refund is not permissible keeping in view the guidelines framed by the AICTE. He has placed reliance on the following judgments:

¶55

(i) L.K.Talwar & another Vs Lovely Professional University - 2012 SCC Online P&H 9150;

¶56

(ii) B.D.Kapoor & another Vs State of Haryana & others - 2012 SCC Online P&H (CWP No.9410/2012);

¶57

WA 290/2020

¶58

¶59

(iii) Rajbir Surajbhan Singh Vs Chairman, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai - (2019)14 SCC 189;

¶60

(iv) Shri Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & others Vs V.R.Rudani & others - AIR 1989 SC 1607;

¶61

(v) Roychan Abraham Vs State of U.P. & others - AIR 2019 ALLAHABAD 96.

¶62

This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the records.

¶63

The undisputed facts makes it very clear that the offer for admission was made on 09.03.2016. The first installment of fees was deposited by the student on 21.03.2016 of Rs.83,000/- and the second installment was deposited on 31.05.2016 of Rs.2,37,000/- and respondent no.1-candidate sought for withdrawal of admission on 10.06.2016. The institution did gave a reply stating that the institution will get back to the student in the first week of July and on 17.08.2016, only a sum of Rs.12,000/- out of the amount of Rs.3,20,000/- was refunded to the student.

¶64

WA 290/2020

¶65

¶66

It has been vehemently argued that as per the guidelines framed by the AICTE, no refund can be made as the institution was not able to fill the seat. The present case is not a case where the student has opted to withdraw his candidature after the last date of commencement of academic session. The institution was having 180 seats and the institution was not able to fill total 180 seats and was able to 172 seats. The institution could have filled up the vacant seats from 10.06.2016 to 01.08.2016. If the students were not coming forward to take admission in the appellantInstitution, the candidate in question cannot be blamed for that, and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference.

¶67

Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court in L.K.Talwar’s case (supra). The aforesaid judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge is not having a binding precedent over this Court. Similarly, the

¶68

WA 290/2020

¶69

¶70

second judgment in B.T.Kapoor’s case also does not have a binding precedent over this Court.

¶71

Reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in Rajbir’s case (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has dealt with the issue whether the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection is a State or not. Learned Counsel has placed heavy reliance upon paragraphs 22 & 23 of the aforesaid judgment and his contention is that the dispute between the student and the institution involves a private element, and therefore, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment. The institution in the present case is certainly discharging a public duty i.e., imparting education to students, and therefore, the writ petition has rightly been entertained by the learned Single Judge.

¶72

The Apex Court in the case of RAMESH AHLUWALIA VS STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS - (2012)12 SCC 331 , while dealing with a private educational institution has held that a private educational institution is certainly amenable to writ

¶73

WA 290/2020

¶74

¶75

jurisdiction, and therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment, the writ petition was very much maintainable.

¶76

Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment delivered in Anand Sadguru’s case (supra) and heavy reliance has been placed upon paragraph 14 of the aforesaid judgment. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment and it was a case of a student who sought admission to a institute and as the institute was discharging public duty i.e., teaching the students, and therefore, a writ petition was certainly maintainable.

¶77

Lastly, reliance placed upon the judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court in Roychand (supra) and the same judgment has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge. This Court keeping in view the aforesaid judgment as the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court has held that the educational institutions imparting education are performing public duty is of the opinion that the appellant-institution was certainly amenable to writ jurisdiction of this High Court.

¶78

WA 290/2020

¶79

¶80

This Court does not find reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed. The refund be made positively within thirty days from today, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit till the amount is actually paid to the student.

¶81

Sd/JUDGE

¶82

Sd/JUDGE

¶83

Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Institute for Management v. Manu Arkasali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Institute for Management v. Manu Arkasali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Vijaya Suvarna Vs State of Karnataka

B.M. Rajanna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H Vageesha Vs Department of Forest

Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs Geodesic Techniques Private Limited

Sri v Lakshmikanth Vs State of Karnataka

The Commissioner Vs Smt. Lakshmamma